geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill de hÓra <b...@dehora.net>
Subject Re: Geronimo Deployment Descriptors -- and premature optimisation
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:10:40 GMT
Cabrera, Alan wrote:

> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill@dehora.net] 
>>
>>Fwiw, the answer to this problem is to eliminate implmentation 
>>specific descriptors where possible. To paraphrase jwz - some 
>>people, when confronted with a vendor specific J2EE descriptor think 
>>"I know, I'll use a deployment tool." Now they have two problems.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is an argument to eliminate implementation specific
> descriptors where possible or a commentary on the current state of
> deployment tools.

:)

I'd like to think that in some alternate reality, there is a J2EE 
spec where the specified descriptors are adequate for building J2EE 
backed systems.

But... I'd also like to be in a situation some time from now where I 
could deploy to Geronimo without using any Geronimo specific 
descriptors. Maybe that's just not possible, or maybe we're simply 
inured to vendor specific descriptors as a way of working, but in 
any case, I would argue that Geronimo look to minimize the 
descriptors it needs over and above the J2EE ones. The tools 
argument is secondary to that imho.


> If you are using the latter to justify to former I would think that this
> would be a case of the tail wagging the dog.

I'd hate to see it come to pass that descriptors got piled onto to 
Geronimo with impunity because the deployment tools were good - I 
have no doubt whatsoever that the community involved can write 
excellent deployment tools. But if I wanted to be locked-in (and 
that is the bottom line with vendor specific descriptor metadata), I 
wouldn't be interested in J2EE to begin with.

Bill de hÓra


Mime
View raw message